NFL.com's Greg Rosenthall has RT17 ranked #25 QB in NFL

So, it's interesting to me, as we sit around debating Tannehill, I look at the Pro Bowl selections...Panthers had 10. Patriots 7. Seahawks 7. Bengals 5. Cardinals 7. Chiefs 5. We had 1. Pouncey.

This should be a big clue to our struggles.

 

If they are going to be used to argue how good of a QB someone is or isn't, then yes, I would expect for them to be able to weight in some logical manner.

Its absurd that so many think its ok to spit out something like that and no earthly idea how important it is or isn't.

 

FTR, I do engage them but I will dismiss them unless they weight and explain it and it makes sense. That's not unreasonable of me.

 

Expecting someone to precisely quantify something that cannot be precisely quantified is absurd. I've never seen anyone in sports coverage/analysis do what you're asking. It's ridiculous. All you're doing is backing your way out of any discussion of statistical evidence, which is...unproductive and rather odd for being on a sports board.

If you have an example of some formula for an overall grade handy, please, do share.

 

Well, conversely, if you can't accurately quantify how much weight these things would, or should, have, how can you be confident that you're actually evaluating or measuring what you think you're evaluating or measuring?

 

Completion percentage, for example. Ideally, it's 50/50, right? QB throws quality pass, receiver makes the catch. But then, it's not so simple. Is the QB under duress? Does the receiver run a good route? Does the defender make a great play on the ball? Just a few variables, off the top of my head.

 

To me it's Tanne's lack of clutch that's the problem, I'd have a lot less of a problem with his other deficiencies if he could play well in clutch situations, it's 4 years now, so it can't be someone elses fault all the time, his play drops of dramatically in clutch situations, there really is no viable argument against that at this point, it can'y always be someone elses fault for 4 years running.

 

I dunno. I pretty much disregard his first year, as a raw rookie. Years two and three, in playoff type situations, it wasn't only Tannehill, but the entire team that was bad. This year, the team as a whole is a dumpster fire.

I think it's pretty shortsighted to try to make the case that he isn't clutch. We've all seen Tannehill do some clutch things, and have players drop balls or commit penalties to negate his plays.

I'm not saying it's all the time, but it's happened enough.

 

Yeah, but there are stats you can't ignore:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/splits/

His 4th quarter rating is worse than the other 3 quarters, and check out his rating when trailing with 2 minutes to go (45.5) or 4 minutes to go (62). Those are worlds different than playing when tied or ahead (he's in the 90's or 100's).

Tannehill generally is not "clutch". Yes, sometimes he is (best example is that Seattle game long ago beating RW with multiple comebacks) but usually he's not.

 

Yes, those are bad. But, let's be honest, trailing in the fourth, that's when the other problems really show there faces, and wreak havoc. The oline problems really hinder the offense in the fourth, when you need quick scores, and no run game when you need to drain clock. Defenses getting pressure without blitzing, and only giving us short routes (even though it seems our scheme is allergic to routes past the sticks). I just don't think those stats necessarily say what you think they say.

They might, but one can make a good argument that they don't.

 

All that may be true, but note that: 1) sample size for Tannehill is largest for the "trailing" conditions, meaning those stats are more reliable than you'd like, and 2) while most QB's have worse ratings when trailing, the "franchise QB's" tend to have better numbers than Tannehill. You can google those to see. I think it's a stretch to pin the blame here entirely or even mostly on the OL or other parts. I mean.. the OL is bad the entire game.. it doesn't suddenly get so much worse when trailing with a few minutes left.

 

You don't think the oline is more exposed late in a game, in definite throwing situations?

I'm not saying Tannehill has been good in those situations, but I am saying that the oline, receivers, and play design have hurt him, making the job of the developing QB even harder than it needs to be.

 

Not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that the degree to which the OL or other parts are more exposed is probably similar across teams. So whatever the level of surrounding cast play is, that SHOULD decrease under pressure, like when trailing with a few minutes left. So compare the decreases if you wish.

Let me show you an example of a QB that is truly "clutch" (extreme example):
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00/splits/

On average, Brady's ratings are BEST when trailing!! Better than when tied or ahead (on average). That's an anomaly.

More likely you see something like this:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00/splits/

With Flacco, you clearly see the ratings go down when trailing or tied, but they stay relatively similar (as opposed to Tannehill where he just drops when trailing) and they're still half respectable, in the high 60's to high 70's. Point is, I think it's hard to say Tannehill is "clutch" when comparing stats among "franchise" QB's. And of course you have what you see with your eyes which I think doesn't overturn the stats argument.

 

I don't know Res, shortsighted? I think 4 years is enough, he has played poorly in all the playoff potential games, and for his career he has a 73 rating vs AFC east, 5-11 against the Bills and Jets, who have not been world beaters by any stretch, 7-16 overall vs the east, 21-18 vs the rest of the NFL, so just not getting it done in the div, the most important games, 73 rating on 3rd down, 77 rating in the 4th quarter.

After 4 years that is a pattern, every year same thing, except in his rookie year he posted his highest 4th quarter rating of his career, 83, besides that his numbers are the same pattern every year, which all point to him.

 

Like I said, I really don't count year one, much as I wouldn't for any QB. This year is supposed to count for something? The team, top to bottom, has been dysfunctional. It's a wreck. We've fired our DV, OC, and HC. The other two seasons we've had terrible oline play, and questionable receivers.

So, yeah, I think it's s little shortsighted to look at record, or fourth quarter stats, and make any conclusions.

You may be right, I'm just saying, there's a good argument to be made for what I'm saying.

Cbrad, all I'm really saying is, a raw QB who needed developing, struggled to overcome piss poor oline play, incredibly inconsistent receiver play, and questionable coaching. Oh, and a defense that likes to give up 30 points like it's nothing. Is that a surprise to anyone, that he looks bad in clutch situations?

I don't know. Maybe a great QB would overcome all this stuff. I just have a hard time believing it.

 

We need to clean the slate, you may be right, this oline has been and is still not nfl caliber..its not fair to judge him like this..lets get him brandon brooks, or Osemele, or Boone, another lower end one, bring back albert, pounce, and james, get rid of everyone else, get a new oline coach in here, and lets figure this out

 

Yeah, asking a QB that needs developing to overcome all kinds of problems given his (bad) coaches and supporting cast may very well be the reason he hasn't developed into a "clutch" QB. I'd agree with you that it's not normal for a typical QB to overcome that. Let's just not confound that with the argument that his bad clutch stats are probably a reflection of the QB's abilities (and aren't that easily explained away by looking at the play of his surrounding cast during the game).

 

Sorry, not buying it for a second. Johnson injuring his throwing a year before the draft gave him PLENTY of time to recover at the very least by the combine and he still had one of the worst velocities at the combine for QB's. Its absolutely comparable for an ACL tear. A back would be expected to run normal after a year, a QB could be expected to throw normal after a year especially when it wasnt a Rotator Cuff or Tommy John type surgery. Thats more then enough time. Secondly, he lost the starting job to Tannehill because he had a losing record. His stats were nice but when you have a losing record no one cares? How come Tannehill produced wins with the same cast that Johnson couldnt? Third, A shoulder injury would not have prevented him from being drafted if they felt he was good enough. He wasnt. Plain and simple. We've seen backups drafted based just on potential (Matt Cassel is a perfect example....barely played at all in college). If they felt a QB had an OUNCE of potential he would get picked. Like I said, half the teams need a legit starter and most teams need a good backup. If he had the slightest hope of panning out he wouldve been on someones practice squad. He keeps getting cut every year.

2nd mistake using Bleacher Report as a legitimate source. You have to be really careful which writers you use from there. Howard Beck (for Basketball) = Good. Most of the no names are horrible. They pull whoever to write articles for them.

3rd the reference I made as far as Brady/Henne and Kliff Kingsbury...I feel like we are only having this discussion because Jerron Johnson and Tannehill went to the same school and the ridiculous arguments being made for Jerron Johnson.

4th Tannehill provided enough reason to be drafted in the top 10. Some of it was potential and I had and still have my concerns.....I usually subscribe to the Parcells method of having at least 30 starts, high character (from QB's) and being a captain. Tannehill had a lot of good characteristics and still does. He needs to do more though I agree.

 

I see so it makes perfect sense to you, for someone to treat W/L record as a 100% on the QB, instead of me asking for a reasonable weighting of it.

That's so ridiculous.

Your stance leads to Dilfer being a better QB than Marino because he won a SB.

Or, you know, you could weight that win, so it makes sense.

But you're right, screw that.

 

Franchise QBs tend to not have to deal with a bad OL, bad OC, abandoned running game and not being allowed to audible either.

What QB, with the game on the line, has a horrible oline, knows the defense is going to tee off on his horrible line because they know exactly what's coming, he can't change the play based on what he sees and its designed to run short of the sticks with receivers being bunched up?

Its so bizarre to me that people just keep ignoring these very real things as if they don't matter and a "real" QB can just "will" is team to win by magic.

Your stats are a result. No one is arguing the stats. They are just arguing how the result was achieved. One side points out the very real and obvious issues causing the results, the other side is saying look at the results, who cares how we got them, he just sucks.

 

Right, yeah, I totally said that. You quoted this post above...

I suppose I consider the first two slightly more important than the last two. I like to see how the guy stacks up against the rest of the League in these depts. But I don't have a mathematical formula for it, as you seem to require.

 

Wait....if W/L record isn't 100% then you're..........weighting it.

But, but, but......

I feel like I should've put spoiler tags after the "you're".

 

When the stats show other QB's having similar or even better ratings when you compare "tied" to "trailing" and Tannehill's falls off a cliff with "trailing", that suggests the QB is a major reason for the difference. Because whatever the level of surrounding cast play, you'd expect any surrounding cast to play worse when "trailing". So yeah the stats do suggest Tannehill isn't clutch.

One can definitely blame the surrounding cast for failure of Tannehill to develop that skill, but it's hard to look at the stats and blame the surrounding cast for the vast difference in rating between "tied" and "trailing" when you don't see that massive drop off in other franchise QB's.

 

I'm gonna say this again....

Stats are results. Stats are not how the results were achieved.

Your stats show a result, they don't show how that result was achieved.

You are making the classic stats mistake.

 

Common sense, please. Or just...read. No one on this site is evaluating a QB based solely on his W/L record. Clearly you don't want to discuss what I actually said, as you've now ignored it twice. I literally explained how I go about this stuff, and you just chose to hear what you wanted to hear. Which I guess is why you're always misrepresenting people's opinions, resulting in them leaving any discussion with you. Which is what I'll do now.

 

Stop telling me I need common sense. Its annoying and baiting.

You're wrong. Posters have constantly pointed to W/L record to say X QB sucks or Y QB is great. You're just wrong about that.

I haven't ignored it. I'm just waiting for you to realize that you're actually weighting W/L record, while telling me it can't be done.

I hope that realization comes soon.

 

I just explained why the stats are extremely hard to explain with your suggested explanation. If you can't see that, it's fine. Not going to argue endlessly on something that's fairly obvious. Anyway, just so you know your explanation suggests the OL and surrounding cast is great when playing "ahead" or "tied", but suddenly becomes utterly terrible when playing while "trailing". And the drop off is so severe we basically never see that difference in play with other teams. Yeah.. not a tenable hypothesis. But I'll stop arguing here because I know the crap that's coming otherwise haha!

You have the last word dude!

 

You said its hard to look at the stats and place blame on the surrounding cast when there's no massive drop off for other QBs. You say that here:

I'm saying that Tannehill has to deal with stuff no other QB does. So please explain how pointing to other QBs not having the same drop off counters that point? It doesn't. In fact, it comes closer to reinforcing my point than your's.

My explanation doesn't suggest that they are great outside of the the 4th quarter. This is why you need to get your eyes off of Excel and watch a game or two. You're completely ignoring things that are common football sense because you can't define them with a stat.

 

Well, when it comes to the oline and receivers, I wouldn't say they play great when ahead or tied, but they certainly aren't exposed as much. In the fourth quarter, and late in games, when there is zero threat of a run, the oline is truly terrible, and we've seen receivers flat out fail over and over through these four seasons.

So, again, being "clutch" definitely involves other players making plays. You can't really just compare Tannehill's stats to other QBs stats, and make a conclusion.

 

The problem is that the level of play is being treated as a constant. If an oline performs at a 50 out of a 100 (random rating for discussion purposes) in the first quarter, then clearly they must also operate at a 50/100 in the fourth. It doesn't stop there either. If Oline X operates at a 50/100 in the fourth quarter, then apparently, Oline Y operates at a 50/100 in the 4th as well.

This is why some people need to stop putting all their eggs in the stats basket, just like some people need to stop putting all their eggs in the film basket.

 

Just speaking for myself, the oline is and has been bad enough where we need to quit this debate and start focusing on building a decent line for him, it's def been bad enough where a lot of good qbs would of been negatively effected so we're approaching that pure bliss which is offseason time, and that free agency list for guards is delectable..

I look at it like this, our qb is not a playmaker type, and this oline is not nearly good enough to protect a qb like that, so let's get it right, take it from worst to good and see what traits our qb does have that he can elevate his game...

 

#25 sounds about right for this season. THILL has only been an average QB, and this season there has been coaching turmoil so #25 isn't a surprising drop.

 

I realize that most folks who have been on Ryan's side in this debate were also the ones who told us russell Wilson was overrated or a product of his defense and lynch...are y'all willing to concede that he is a great qb now? With no but's?

 

Sadly, the clearest sign that Ryan Tannehill had a real lousy year and didn't get the job done is evidenced by every Tannehill thread turning into a 25 page fierce debate.

Fans of teams that have a franchise QB have no need for debate like this. We didn't see these discussions last year. Tannehill has regressed and here they are.

 

We absolutely saw the discussions last year and the year before and the year before.

 

That ****er wilson killed my fantasy team when I neglected to pick him up 5 weeks ago and stuck with tannehill.I guess I should say I killed my fantasy team.Going to cost me over a grand.

 

For myself, I've questioned whether he was elite. I've questioned whether he can carry a team, without a great defense and a good running game. As of yet, have we seen him really be successful without a good defense? I'm sure he would still make plays, but would be still win as many games? The point about defense or run game, for me isn't meant to take away credit from Wilson for the great things he dies, but more to try to focus on the team aspect.

So, yeah, I think that Wilson is good to great, but I'm not sure that he can carry poor teams to the playoffs.

 

tanny has had the ability to change the play the past two games and the outcome in these games have been even worse then when Lazor had his hands tied. You really need to drop that as an argument, because it fails everytime.

 

Yeah, we've seen Tannehill call protections, and the guys he point out still come through unblocked. We've seen him audible and throw at least one touchdown.

But, yeah, I'm sure the offense has been worse because Tannehill could audible, not for any other reason.